The Socio-Technical Construction of Technology in German-Argentine ICT Cooperation

  • Alejandra S. KernEmail author
  • Hernán E. Thomas
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)


The purpose of this chapter is to present and apply an analytical framework to study the relationship between science, technology, and politics in international cooperation processes. An interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological framework is elaborated, with an analytical focus on the complexity of the process captured by the notion of “socio-technical”. Allowing for a broad understanding, the model is based on a combination of concepts from different fields of social science, particularly International Relations Theory and the Social Studies of Technology. To understand how international cooperation comes about, two dimensions are identified: (a) the of technologies, both at the international and national level; (b) the dynamics of interaction between human and non-human elements (research teams, technologies, governmental institutions, forms, texts, etc.) explained as different configurations of techno-political-economic networks. This framework is applied to the analysis of a cooperation case between Argentina and Germany in the field of Information and Communication Technologies during the 1990s (A more complete description and analysis of this case was developed in Kern 2008). This case study serves to shed light on relevant features of cooperation between developed and developing countries.


Business Process Research Agenda International Cooperation Project Proposal Cooperation Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bell, G., & Callon, M. (1994). Techno-economic networks and science and technology policy. Science Technology Industry, 14, 59–117.Google Scholar
  2. Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. BMBF. (1997). Bundesbericht Forschung 1996. Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
  4. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International systems in world history. Remaking the study of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1992). The dynamics of techno-economic networks. In P. Saviotti, R. Coombs, & V. Walsh (Eds.), Technological change and company strategies (pp. 72–102). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Callon, M. (1994). El proceso de construcción de la sociedad. El estudio de la tecnología como herramienta para el análisis sociológico. In M. Doménech & F. Javier Tirado (Eds.), Sociología Simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad (pp. 143–170). Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (2001). Redes tecno-económicas e irreversibilidad. Redes, 17, 85–126.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, R. W. (1986). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. In R. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 204–254). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, R. W. (1987). Production, power and world order. Social forces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dagnino, R., Brandão, F. C., & Novaes, H. T. (2004). Sobre o marco analítico-conceitual da tecnología social. In Tecnología social. Uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento (pp. 15–64). Rio de Janeiro: Fundacão Banco do Brasil.Google Scholar
  12. Elzinaga, A., & Jamison, A. (1995). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In S. Jasanoff et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 572–592). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Herrera, A. (1995). Los determinantes sociales de la política científica en América Latina. Política científica explícita y política científica implícita. Redes, 2(5), 117–131.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, T. P. (1986). The seamless web: Technology, science etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jäger, S. (2003). Discurso y conocimiento: aspectos teóricos y metodológicos de la crítica del discurso y del análisis de dispositivos. In M. de Análisis & C. del Discurso (Eds.), Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (pp. 61–100). Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
  16. Keohane, R., & Joseph, N. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age, Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kern, A. (2008). Las relaciones entre ciencia, tecnología y política en procesos de cooperación internacional. La experiencia de cooperación entre Argentina y Alemania en el campo de las Tecnologías Informáticas. PhD Thesis at FLACSO Argentina.Google Scholar
  18. Kern, A. (2009). Intereses, identidades, discursos e interacciones en la cooperación internacional en ciencia y tecnología. Observaciones de un estudio de caso entre Argentina y Alemania en el campo de las Tecnologías Informáticas. Miríada N° 2.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (1989). Science in action. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  20. Molina, A. (1989). The transputer constituency - Building up UK/European capabilities in information technology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  21. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker et al. (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 18–50). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenau, J., & Singh, J. P. (2002). Information technologies and global politics. The changing scope of power and governance. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shinn, T. (1982). Scientific disciplines and organizational specificity: The social and cognitive configuration of laboratory activities. In N. Elias, H. Martins, & R. Whitley (Eds.), Scientific establishments and hierarchies (pp. 239–264). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strange, S. (1988). States and markets. An introduction to international political economy. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, H. (1999). Dinâmicas de inovação na Argentina (1970-1995) Abertura comercial, crise sistêmica e rearticulação. PhD Thesis, UNICAMP, Campinas.Google Scholar
  27. Thomas, H. (2001). Estilos socio-técnicos de innovación periférica. La dinámica del SNI argentino, 1970-2000, en IX Seminario Latino-Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica: Innovación Tecnológica en la Economía del Conocimiento, CD ISBN: 9968-32-012-9, San José de Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  28. Thomas, H. (2008a). Estructuras cerradas vs. Procesos dinámicos: trayectorias y estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico. In H. Thomas & M. Fressoli (Eds.), Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la Tecnología (pp. 217–262). Editorial de la UNQ: Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, H. (2008b). En búsqueda de una metodología para investigar Tecnologías Sociales. Paper presented at the workshop Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, H., Lalouf, A., & Versino, M. S. (2005). Trayectorias socio-técnicas, estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico, resignificación de tecnologías y conocimientos genéricos en países subdesarrollados. VI Jornadas Latinoamericanas de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología (ESOCITE).Google Scholar
  31. Vercelli, A., & Thomas, H. (2007). La co­construcción de tecnologías y regulaciones: análisis socio­técnico de un artefacto anti­copia de Sony­ BMG. Revista Espacios, 3, 5–30.Google Scholar
  32. Waltz, K. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: More may better. Adelphi Papers, Number 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de San MartinSan MartinArgentina
  2. 2.Instituto de Estudios sobre la Ciencia y la TecnologíaUniversidad Nacional de Quilmes – CONICETBernalArgentina

Personalised recommendations